OCR Text |
Show SUCCESSION UNBROKEN EROM PETER TO PIUS X Reply to Challenge of "Baptist Advance" for Proof That Peter Was the first Bishop of Rome. (Written for The Intermountain Catholic.) In an article on the necessity of "an infallible 1 and indefectible ministry.-' which appeared in this paper, Aug. 12. the Baptist, Advance, published at Little Rock. Ark., takes exception to the conclusion, conclu-sion, namely, "the unbroken order of succession ' from Peter, appointed by Chri.-t to rule the universal uni-versal church, down to Pius X, now gloriously reigning." The main points of the article the editor pa os over.' admitting, however, that "it might be placed in the category 'important if true." .No doubt t it. as one religiously disposed may learn from the, two last paragraphs of the article in quc.-tion. This is an age of enlightenment and progress. Xo door is too sacred for the investigation of science. Oil landmarks of the past are obliterated; religious wrangles, prejudices and hostilities are thrown aside. They belong to a past age. Every religious system is subjected to a crucial test; the foundation founda-tion is carefully examined, and on its solidity alone can those who are religiously disposed appeal to an incredulous age. Where the foundation is de fective the superstructure mni necessarily be faulty. The Catholic writers object, in the article referred re-ferred to, was to etablih the supernatural character char-acter of the founder of Christianity; () his rightful right-ful claim to the faith of the world, and (S) the awful consequences of not believing what he revealed re-vealed in its entirety. "He that believeth not shall be condemned." All this is conceded by the. edi- j tor of the Baptist Advance, who gracefully places J it "in the category important."' But he objects I to the order of unbroken succession from Peter tu I Pius X, which he terms "one of those vagaries j which have no existence in fact.' But. if facts j sustain it, what then? Will it be admitted into f "the 'category important " The law of succession j mean the title which, settles the succession, and is j termed the judicial decree which determines an of- I ' lice not" to be" merely personal, bet personal " in ' ' t such' a sense a 3- to be "at the came time real and i perpetual. ' The law of succession was included on the con- ferring of the primacy on Peter by Christ, and its existence, for twenty centuries, proves hs perpe- ! tuity. The law 'of succession, being instituted by Christ, is not an ecclesiastical law but a divine ; law. The crucial test, then, is to determine the law of succession. Peter was appointed by our Lord. The Bible, history both sacred and profane, together to-gether with Christian tradition, confirm this. Under the conditions of succession then, in order to determine the rightful successor, it is only neces- ; sary to prove that: (1) Peter was Bishop of Rome; (2) that he was there till his death; (.") that he never resigned his episcopal authority of that see; . (4) that his supreme authority and universal jurisdiction juris-diction were inseparable from the See of Rome. This established, the Baptist Advance places it ;. "in the category of important if true." But, instead of attempting to disprove it, by a simple denial ; it settles the whole question. "The Bishops of J Rome," says the historian and theologian of the I Advance, ''do not begin with St. Peter." With whom, then, do they begin St. Linus, tT-t3; St. t Cletus, 73-91; St. Clement I, 91-100, were his im- i mediate successors. Who was the usurper? The sovereignty and authority of the Bishop of Rome were admitted by the eastern and western churches. I Of this there is ample proof in the testimony of J the Greek fathers. St. John Chrysostom, St. Jerome , and Euscbius are more trustworthy and reliable witness of Peter's occupancy of the See of Rome 1 1 and his exercising universal jurisdiction over the j entire church, than its denial by llarsilius Pata- J vinus, who severed his allegiance from the Cath- I olic church in the fourteenth century. f Being the first heretic to deny the fact of Pc- ter's occupancy of the Eoman see. what, reasons did he give for this thirteen hundred years old al- , leged fact? We give the reason in the words of Patavinus: "As to St. Peter," he wrote, '"I say that S it cannot be proved from Holy Scripture that he i j was Bishop of Borne; nay, more, that he was ever in Rome at all. Wonderful, indeed, it seems, that ? according to some ecclesiastical legend f such things are to be said of Peter, and that Luke and Paul should make no mention of it." Here l are the origin and reason for the denial, and from I this source all subsequent writers the Baptist Ad- vance included have derived their information. Before giving the testimony of the Greek t, father we will submit the fact upon which the denial de-nial is founded to its logical consequences. conse-quences. What the Holy Scriptures fail to men- & tion is a legend, and not a Christian truth. But it is a fact that neither Luke, Paul nor any of I the inspired writers mention Peter as Bishop of Home. Ergo, it is a legend. But it is also fact that none of the inspired writers speak of keep- ing Sunday, rather' than the real Sabbath, holy. t Ergo, the change from Saturday to. Sunday is a j. legend, and the Baptists unite with all other Chris- j tian churches in perpetuating the legend. But this en passant. . The testimony of St. Chrysostom of Antiocii (A. D. 387) as to Peter's primacy and occupancy I of the Roman see is very conclusive. In his sec-ond sec-ond Homily on" the Inscription of the Acts of the j Apostles he said: "For Peter himself received this , j very name, not from wonders and signs, but. from t zeal and sincere love. For not because he raised the dead or ! made straight the lame was he so j named; but because he manifested sincere faith. . together with that confession he had that name f allotted to him. 'Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church.' And as I have j named Peter. I am reminded of another Peter also t (Flavian. Bishop of Antioch), our common father I and teacher, who, having succeeded to his virtue, (Continued on Tage 5.) I I I SUCCESSION UNBROKEN FROM PETER TO PIUS X (Continued from Page i.) has also .'.Hotted 1 , him his chair. For this is also t!C p.-ivi!cjro; of cur oily. vh;;c it received in the beginning be-ginning for its K-ick-r the chief of the apostle. (Peter was iir.-t Blkop of Amiocli.) Fur jt wai! bcutting thai that city, which before the rest of ihe world was crovrned by the name of Christian, hould receive as shepherd the Hrsi of the apostle.' But after h:;v;ng him as our ttuchcr, we did not keep him. bi:t surrendered him to imueri d Borne. Nay, but we ever kept him. For though ve did' not keep Peter's body, we kept Peter's faith in Peter's stead; and, having the faith of Peter, we have Peter himself." St. Jerome, in his "Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers" 8ays: ''Simon Peter, son of John, of the province of (ialilee, of the town of Bethsaida brother of Andrew the'Apostle, hinwlf prince of the apostles, after being Bishop of Antioch .and, preaching to those of the circumcision who be-Ikved. be-Ikved. dispersed in Pont us, Glnte, Cftppadocia, Asia and Bvthini procctucd m the second year of Claudius' to Home to eo.itound Simon Magus; and there held -lot t-nty-hyo years the sareedotal see until the last yent'. '"at s the fourteenth of ro bv whom he c,row,UPl1 itx martyrdom, being crucified with TO downward.; and his fee! wised nptraru-.- s3.VS "int he was not. wortliv to be crucified as hUlf ""' He was buried at Pome in th ,NalK'a,n. -- Triumphal Yv'av where he is "ad m Jn,L,1" veneration of ihe whole citv." The testimony oi St. Jerome, who was a profound scholar, thoroughly acquainted with earlv historv of the Christian .church, who lived a part of his' life i the east and a part in Pome, should have more weight with an honest and sincere sin-cere searcher for truth than that of the depraved writer who was a thou"d years after this learned doctor of the church- . . " We add to these" testimonies that of Eusebius. himself a historian, who crmcally examined all historical his-torical events that preceded his time (:)j:,,. H treating of the Emperor Cam, and the beginning of the reign of Claudius, he writes: "Peter the "apostle. Galilean by birth, the hrst pontiff of the Christian.-, having tir?t .otimled the church at An-tioeh. An-tioeh. coes to Koine, and there preaching the Cos-pel Cos-pel for" twenty-five years, continued bishop of that city." Beferriug to the tlm'tcenlh year oi Nero, this same historian writes: "Nero was first . above all his other crimes, to raise a persecution against the Christians, in which Peter and Paul suffered a glorious death in Pome. These testimonies c-Jii he o multiplied, that if the editor of the Baptist Advance is sincere and honest in his historical research ho will tind no fact in history more universally authenticated and better attested than the Komau episcopate of St. Peter. Why, the)), deny it' Is it because "it 'might be placed in the category important if true!" But every fair-minded, sincere editor Loves the truth, which alone "makes man free." A simple statement that "it is one of those vagaries which havp no existence ex-istence in fact," is a incTe gratuitous assertion, and what is gratuitously n5md e:.u be gratuitously denied. So strong is. jhv testimony obtained from the early Christian writers that Peter went to Home and wa crucified in Koine, that Protestant writers, writ-ers, like Cave, Pearson. Grotiu. Usher, Bloudell. Basnage and other? who thoroughly investigated the question, admit iyu'an historical fact. Then. .Mr. Editor, will you 'graciously yield to' the inevitable inevi-table and place it "on the category important"? Would you, because of its importance and the consequences con-sequences that follow from the admission, viz.. the succession of the primacy of the Roman sec. yield if an angel from heaven revealed to you the facts: (1) that Peter was himself Bishop of Pome; (i) that he was so until his death; (.')) that he did not resign to another his universal authority or primacy before he was crucified; and. lastly.' that he bequeathed to his successors in the See of Koine his supreme authority? To expect you would yield would be presuming too much. Why? Canon iloberlson. the Anglican historian, in his history of the Christian church, answers: "It is not so much a spirit of sound criticism criti-cism as a religious prejudice that has led some Protestant Pro-testant writers to deny that the apostle was ever at Home, where all ancient testimony represents him to have suffered, together with St! 'Paul, in the reign of. Nero." As to the law of succession which you claim to be broken, it is a mere gratuitous assertion; aud the iry reverse can be us easily proved as that the Diocese f Little Pvck was established in 1S4". that its first bihop was lit. .Rev. Andrew 'Byrne. -D. I)., who died rVxlIelei)a. June 10. 1SG2. ad that the present venerable prelate. lit. Rev; fidward Fiti-igerald. Fiti-igerald. 1). D.. Hvho sty"cids hiln. vas consecrated 'Feb. o. 1S07. IfNEdi.''ivove woul-gracioUsly eon-deseeiid eon-deseeiid to coiisyjLiiicempd pastor ol' souls who is' th4 real7.?1; fbepherd divinelf'' -appointed to ttfaeh tijM faVe soitJs. he will learii more Christ truths than he eveid reamed of. |